Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Bidudhuriramana Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1081 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1081 AP
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bidudhuriramana Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 23 February, 2021
Bench: D.V.S.S.Somayajulu
 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

                Writ Petition No.4064 of 2021


Order:

        Heard    learned     counsel   for   the     petitioner,

Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for

respondent Nos.1 and 6, Mr. N.Ashwani Kumar learned

standing counsel for respondent No.2 and Government

Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

The issue raised in this writ petition is about the

allegedly improper rejection of the Election Appeal. The

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 10th

respondent has more than two children and that he is

not entitled to contest the election in view of the par

contended in Panchayat Act. He submits that he has

filed important documents including a certificate

issued by the DM & HO, Ananthapur, about the dates

of birth of the children. He also filed study certificates

etc., The learned counsel submits that despite such

important certificates being filed, the impugned order

was passed in summary manner, without giving any

reasons whatsoever and ignoring vital evidence that

has been produced. Learned counsel also relies upon

the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad reported in

W.P.No.23648 of 2013, dated 29.04.2013 to argue that

it is a fit case in which this Court should interfere and

grant an order.

In reply to this, Sri V.Vinod K Reddy, learned

standing counsel for the Panchayat and Sri Narahari

Babu, learned counsel for the 10th respondent argues

that the writ is not maintainable. Both of them submit

that even if what is stated by the learned counsel for

the petitioner is correct, the proper remedy for the

petitioner is only to file an election petition challenging

the election.

Sri Narahari Babu, learned counsel appearing for

the 10th respondent submits that elections were

already concluded and the 10th respondent is declared

as elected. It is his contention that the only remedy

open is to file an election petition. He also submits that

E.O.P No.1 of 2014 has been filed earlier and in that

case, the Court has held that Sri P.Balaji, 10th

respondent is not the father of more than two children.

This Court after considering the submissions, is

of the opinion that the writ is not an appropriate

remedy in a case of this nature. As per the settled law

on the subject including the Full Bench Judgment in

Kalla Ramakrishna vs State Election Commission1,

2004 (6) ALD 587

even if there is improper rejection of nomination papers

etc., the only remedy is to file an election petition. The

case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner also relates to the writ petition filed after an

E.O.P was heard and disposed of. Learned counsel

drew the attention of this Court to para 32 of the

affidavit. But this Court finds that the learned Single

Judge deciding the matter had the order of election

tribunal before him and he came to the conclusion that

the election tribunal did not apply its mind to the case

in hand. This order does not in any way confer

jurisdiction of this Court nor does it run contrary to

the settled law on the subject. The Election Tribunal

dismissed the Election Petition, in the case before the

learned Single Judge. After considering the evidence, a

final order was passed, holding that the 4th respondent

has incurred the disqualification. The same is not the

case here. There are disputed questions of fact, which

are raised and which need to be considered. In view of

the settled law on the subject including the fact that

there are questions of law, this Court is of the opinion

that the writ petition cannot be entertained. This writ

petition is therefore closed leaving it open to the

petitioner to pursue his remedies in appropriate

tribunal.

With these observations, the Writ Petition is

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if

any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

_________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date : 23.02.2021 VSL

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

Writ Petition No.4064 of 2021

Dated : 23.02.2021

VSL

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter